While trying to claim the title of the "fastest AMQP broker in the West" may be appealing to our egos; we mustn't lose sight of the fact that providing a reliable, well documented, and well supported solution at fairly low message volumes is probably higher on most peoples wish list. Certainly none of the deployments of Qpid that I have been involved in have stretched in any way its performance.
Scalability, and resiliance under load, however, are things that we should definitely look at, Rob On 10/01/2008, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > > I agree. I am a an AMQP user currently using Rabbit, since the thing > > just works, it complies with AMPQ 0.8 and we get very nice support. > > From my point of view interop is the highest priority - why would I > > choose AMQP if it's not AMQP? > > The only reason for the deviation from the AMQP spec was that the > official 0-8 spec had limitations that meant we could not achieve full > JMS compliance without some changes. We had other users for whom full > JMS compliance was critical. > > > Also - interesting discussion about performance - I'd be interested in > > better and less biased comparisons, while I'm still aware that msg/sec > > and latency is not the only interesting kind of performance in a > > product like this. > > What are your performance requirements? What client implementations do > you need? Are you interested in road testing Qpid? Our recent M2 > release incorporates a huge number of changes and improvements. > > RG >
